[retrac]

Knowingly receiving then spending stolen money or property is a crime in many jurisdictions. In many cases it may be phrased like "or ought to have known" so wilful ignorance isn't a defence.

Even unknowingly receiving stolen money or property leaves you on the hook, potentially. If the rightful owner tracks it to you they can go "that's mine!" and the courts will order you to give it to them. The loss you incur here is yours; the law treats it as an incentive to be diligent and to not deal in stolen goods.

You can of course then try to recover the value you are owed from the person who sent you the stolen goods/money, if you want/can. And they from whoever sold them the stolen goods/money. And so on, all the way back to the original thief. The whole chain is tainted. (Pun intended, maybe.)

[kelnos]

> If the rightful owner tracks it to you they can go "that's mine!" and the courts will order you to give it to them.

I don't believe that's true, though this is based on just stuff I've heard, not on any data I can present. In general I hear that if someone steals something, and then sells it to you, and you don't know (and have no reason to believe) it was stolen, not only are you not legally liable, but you cannot be forced to return the property to the original owner.

If this wasn't the case, the act of buying anything through a private sale would in general be pretty risky.

This goes pretty far sometimes: I remember a somewhat bizarre case where someone sold some land to someone, and lied to the buyer about where the property line was. The new owner built on what was technically someone else's land, but later the "true" owner lost in court, and the owner who built on it was given ownership rights, and I don't believe was required to compensate the "true" owner. (I imagine the "true" owner had a strong case against the lying seller, though.)

[vageli]

At least in the United States, I don't believe this is true. Years ago I bought a laptop for a too-good-to-be-true price on Craigslist. As it turns out, the laptop I purchased had some kind of hardware lojack and I had a uniformed police officer and detective show up at my door, and later found myself responding to their questions at the station. When all was said and done, I was without the laptop and receiving $50/week until the full amount of $700 was received from the thief.

[dragonwriter]

> The new owner built on what was technically someone else's land, but later the "true" owner lost in court, and the owner who built on it was given ownership rights, and I don't believe was required to compensate the "true" owner.

Sounds like a case of adverse possession, which is a special feature of real property law not shared with personal property.

So, while that story is plausible, its not something you should generalize to non-real-estate law.

[chii]

But in reality, nobody does - and only in some peculiar cases do payments made to a merchant gets confiscated like that (and they usually have no recourse).